Terms and conditions apply: Initial readings of De Montaigne™may seem dry and meandering, may cause high spirits and over flow of superabundant ethical good health, may be prone to actual social and sexual interaction, contains less moaning about digestion but may pass large agonizing stones...

Terms and conditions apply: Initial readings of De Montaigne™may seem dry and meandering, may cause high spirits and over flow of superabundant ethical good health, may be prone to actual social and sexual interaction, contains less moaning about digestion but may pass large agonizing stones...

Why must the lion tear up the child? I'll let Montaigne speak here...because

Of all our infirmities, the most savage is to despise our being.

The lion within himself despises the child within himself because he does not truly see that it is his own child within that can tame him and make him free. The cub has a sense of freedom, playfulness, wonder, acceptance and trust.

The lion and the child must merge into perfect harmony - a sense of well being.

carpe diem!

“How can a bird that is born for joySit in a cage and sing?” ― William Blake

Terms and conditions apply: Initial readings of De Montaigne™may seem dry and meandering, may cause high spirits and over flow of superabundant ethical good health, may be prone to actual social and sexual interaction, contains less moaning about digestion but may pass large agonizing stones...

arcturus rising wrote:Of all our infirmities, the most savage is to despise our being.

The lion within himself despises the child within himself because he does not truly see that it is his own child within that can tame him and make him free. The cub has a sense of freedom, playfulness, wonder, acceptance and trust.

Lovely, but this doesnt really make any sense in this context. Firstly, the lion is supposed to represent self respect. Maybe there should be some freedom to bend meaning, but to turn it around 180 degrees?

We can, if we are feeling free and poetic, say anything, of course. The Lion is a butterfly who liberates himself from his cocoon and his ivory tower as his inner knight in shining armor comes to rescue his virgin beauty of soul and together they ride into the sunset which represents the going down of the lion.

The child is a stone thrown across the surface of the lake, bouncing, gliding, ignoring his own weight by the virtue of his lack of heaviness, as with every contact with the surface only the perfection of his own surface is reflected.

The camel is the tower of stone that rises above the desert of nihilism and casts a shadow of doom, where it hides the presence of the sun, which in its naked power is too strong a meaning to be absorbed by the sensitive earthly surface, and strikes it dead, except where it creates a void, behind the tower, where demons dwell in negative meaning...

The smiley is the sun of the baby faced innocence of becoming, and she who posts it shines forth her brilliant radiance for the greater peace of all of us innocent sinners. Ahhhh sigh. I am so moved. The heart is infinitely good and its treasure is everywhere.

Feeling that Ive been unreasonable in my reaction to Sauwelios, whom I asked to contribute to this discussion, I started looking for some more of Lamperts texts on the internet. I quickly ran into this quotation:

"That they're dealing here with the long logic of a completely determinate philosophical sensibility and not with some mishmash of a hundred varied paradoxes and heterodoxes — of that, I believe, nothing has dawned on even my most favorable readers."

Nietzsche to Georg Brandes8 January 1888

This addresses directly the things I wrote about Nietzsche's meaning - Nietzsche himself is on the side of Sauwelios, at least in terms of how he should be approached. But about this I don't need to have doubts, and this does not contradict my own interpretation. What I think I understand, after all, suggests that Nietzsche did not benefit from fully understanding himself, that a psychological profile of himself would have hindered his work. The unpublished note of the OP may have been an unwanted bit of self knowledge shining through, which needed to be transformed into a useful insight.

The point of this is not that Nietzsche is surpassed by this knowledge - not at all. That I think that I know things about him that he did not want or need to know, does not mean that I think that I am looking at him from a superior perspective. The note, my interpretation of it, does not have consequences for Nietzsches published philosophy. It tells nothing that was not already clear to me - it tells that Nietzsche gave everything to the work of overcoming, and in the end his work overcame him. It means that in the end, his person does not matter, only his work does. And that this work must lead to something greater than the person of Nietzsche.

I'd say mostly a light heart for the heavy road - Nietzsche obviously took from him but ultimately had this sulky desire for some sort of hugely individual philosophical burden bearing - retreating up to high places while Monty waltzed about and socialized - maybe he's one of "the lazybones in the garden of knowledge" in the Genealogy - but I'd see that as a good place to be....

The camel is the tower of stone that rises above the desert of nihilism and casts a shadow of doom, where it hides the presence of the sun, which in its naked power is too strong a meaning to be absorbed by the sensitive earthly surface, and strikes it dead, except where it creates a void, behind the tower, where demons dwell in negative meaning...

The joke got out of hand. Wolves howl at the gates of liberty as the night falls over the aging lion laying down to rest, abandoning the fortress of his heart for the flight of his dreams, where he is born from a sun and breaks from the flames, shedding years like tears until no belief remains and all is naked and known as "I Am".

All in all I think that a Nietzschean approach to Nietzsche is too serious, too forced: as the last Christian died on the cross, so the last Nietzschean died - well however it was that Nietzsche died. I do not read Nietzsche the way Nietzsche commands, like I do not read the Torah the way the Torah commands.

But "sulky" is not the word I would choose to describe the desire of a man who felt himself to be dynamite. Waltzing and socializing, as nice as they may be from time to time, are not mans greatest joys.

But "sulky" is not the word I would choose to describe the desire of a man who felt himself to be dynamite. Waltzing and socializing, as nice as they may be from time to time, are not mans greatest joys.

There I would have to differ from you!Dancing/socialising - definetely peak experiences in the whole 'being human' trip.

I do very much second your view of not necessarily reading Nietzsche as Nietzsche commands - surely N- Dawg in some ways or some works does seem to call for a sort of philosophical appropriation of his or any philosophers work to make it fit for life - to enhance life - would that not be a sort of will to power - those truths you are fit for or what ever. Any how it's good to see independent Nietzsche influenced thinking!

Does a man of dynamite lock himself into a room or explode into the real inter subjective world - overflowing in high spirits -ethically super abundant - generous of himself because he has so much extra but not rule bound by penny pinching rules of utilitarians or deontologists. An ethics of excess?

Oh good afternoon Mrs Zarathustra can you fetch himself down from the mountain to dance and play?

The lion within himself despises the child within himself because he does not truly see that it is his own child within that can tame him and make him free. The cub has a sense of freedom, playfulness, wonder, acceptance and trust.

Lovely, but this doesnt really make any sense in this context. Firstly, the lion is supposed to represent self respect. Maybe there should be some freedom to bend meaning, but to turn it around 180 degrees?

Within what context - my interpretation of de Montaigne's quote? It makes sense to me.

"Supposed to"? If the lion represents "self-respect" why then does he have an issue with the child within himself? Wouldn't self-respect include seeing and accepting and merging all aspects of who we are within?

We can, if we are feeling free and poetic, say anything, of course. The Lion is a butterfly who liberates himself from his cocoon and his ivory tower as his inner knight in shining armor comes to rescue his virgin beauty of soul and together they ride into the sunset which represents the going down of the lion.

Our personal experiences do muddy the vision for us, don't they?

The child is a stone thrown across the surface of the lake, bouncing, gliding, ignoring his own weight by the virtue of his lack of heaviness, as with every contact with the surface only the perfection of his own surface is reflected.

Now that is something that all lions must strive for. Perfect freedom of self.

The camel is the tower of stone that rises above the desert of nihilism and casts a shadow of doom, where it hides the presence of the sun, which in its naked power is too strong a meaning to be absorbed by the sensitive earthly surface, and strikes it dead, except where it creates a void, behind the tower, where demons dwell in negative meaning...

If the child rode upon the camel's back, that desert experience would be different.

:banana-dance:

The smiley is the sun of the baby faced innocence of becoming, and she who posts it shines forth her brilliant radiance for the greater peace of all of us innocent sinners. Ahhhh sigh. I am so moved. The heart is infinitely good and its treasure is everywhere.[/quote]By your tone, I would say that you don't really believe that.So, tell me, Jakob, what's your raison de etre?

“How can a bird that is born for joySit in a cage and sing?” ― William Blake

Dancing, yes - waltzing, not necessarily. Nietzsche greatly valued dancing, but not bound to a social context.

I do very much second your view of not necessarily reading Nietzsche as Nietzsche commands - surely N- Dawg in some ways or some works does seem to call for a sort of philosophical appropriation of his or any philosophers work to make it fit for life - to enhance life - would that not be a sort of will to power - those truths you are fit for or what ever.

Exactly. Now the question is: is the Nietzschean drawn to this systematic, "holistic" approach to Nietzsches body of work because of a greater power? I put a questionmark to the idea that this is necessarily the case, but I dont deny that it can be. What I criticize is the attitude that suggests that to approach Nietzsches work as a homogenous system automatically guarantees a superior understanding of the work, or a superior will to power.

Any how it's good to see independent Nietzsche influenced thinking!

In as far as I am influenced by him, Nietzsche is the soil, not the seed.

Does a man of dynamite lock himself into a room or explode into the real inter subjective world -overflowing in high spirits -ethically super abundant - generous of himself because he has so much extra but not rule bound by penny pinching rules of utilitarians or deontologists. An ethics of excess?

Even though one cannot overestimate the joys of what you describe, I think that you underestimate the depth and heights of Nietzsches joy, the joy of the solitary creator in general.

Lovely, but this doesnt really make any sense in this context. Firstly, the lion is supposed to represent self respect. Maybe there should be some freedom to bend meaning, but to turn it around 180 degrees?

Within what context - my interpretation of de Montaigne's quote? It makes sense to me.

Yes, but it was you who brought in de Montaigne in the first place. That doesn't make sense to me unless his quote is logically connected to Nietzsche. You failed to do adequately that, even though it was a praiseworthy attempt.

"Supposed to"? If the lion represents "self-respect" why then does he have an issue with the child within himself? Wouldn't self-respect include seeing and accepting and merging all aspects of who we are within?

As I read it, the Lion of the OP doesn't have issue with the child, he destroys him as a result of out of a lack of lightness, in very general terms, of health.

We can, if we are feeling free and poetic, say anything, of course. The Lion is a butterfly who liberates himself from his cocoon and his ivory tower as his inner knight in shining armor comes to rescue his virgin beauty of soul and together they ride into the sunset which represents the going down of the lion.

Our personal experiences do muddy the vision for us, don't they?

Good God, no! Well, sometimes, unfortunately, and that was probably a a bad sentence... but any vision is a reflection of (personal) experiences. Experience is the personal in "personal", the vision is personal thought.

The child is a stone thrown across the surface of the lake, bouncing, gliding, ignoring his own weight by the virtue of his lack of heaviness, as with every contact with the surface only the perfection of his own surface is reflected.

Now that is something that all lions must strive for. Perfect freedom of self.

The Lions striving is very Yang. It destroys in the end the fertile Earth. Strive (also) softly. Yin.

The camel is the tower of stone that rises above the desert of nihilism and casts a shadow of doom, where it hides the presence of the sun, which in its naked power is too strong a meaning to be absorbed by the sensitive earthly surface, and strikes it dead, except where it creates a void, behind the tower, where demons dwell in negative meaning...

If the child rode upon the camel's back, that desert experience would be different.

Good one! The burden the camel carries is what ultimately must become the child.

jonquil absolutely a d o r e s the idea of taking life and philosophy v e r y seriously, to the exponential nth degree so that a life spent without worrying out heavily and gravely the distinctions between the lion, camel and child in Nietzsche's extremely weighty, extremely significant allegory would hardly be worth living. Most def, Nietzsche stands on a par with my favorite author for heavy, important symbology and absolute truth without irony or ambiguity: Nathaniel Hawthorne.

jonquil wrote:jonquil absolutely a d o r e s the idea of taking life and philosophy v e r y seriously, to the exponential nth degree so that a life spent without worrying out heavily and gravely the distinctions between the lion, camel and child in Nietzsche's extremely weighty, extremely significant allegory would hardly be worth living. Most def, Nietzsche stands on a par with my favorite author for heavy, important symbology and absolute truth without irony or ambiguity: Nathaniel Hawthorne.

HTH, jonquil the unsmiling

No.... You are Helptheherd?

Never took notice of him but I had the feeling googling this Hawthorne would result in a fitting quote, and surely:

"A pure hand needs no glove to cover it."

Now, since I have about 5 aliases on this site, what does that say about me?I guess that Im no fan of Hawthorne either.

But what you may interpret as worry, others refer to as thought. It can be a heady wine, surely.